Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names Order

The order in Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names has been issued. As my firm is involved in this case, I can not comment too deeply on it. However, here is an outline of notable points in the ruling.

  1. Domain names are “property” subject to seizure. The court relied on the holding in Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). See Order at 12-15.
  2. The Kentucky Court has jurisdiction over the domain names by virtue of the Court’s holding that the domains have a “presence” in Kentucky. See Order at 15-22.
  3. The domain names are “gambling devices” as defined under KRS 520.010(4)(a) & (b) since they allow Kentuckians to access gambling services. See Order at 22-25.
  4. Poker, despite having significant elements of skill, is still “gambling” and a game of chance. See Order at 25-26.
  5. Any domain names that block access to Kentucky residents are to be relieved of the forfeiture order. See Order at 39-40.

9 Responses to Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names Order

  1. […] more here: Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names Order Posted in Domains on Oct 16th, 2008, 3:14 […]

  2. […] order. The final hearing on forfeiture will be heard on November 17, 2008. Read the update here: Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names Order « The Legal Satyricon The judge’s order can be found at:…08-ci-1409.pdf It’s […]

  3. Bob Cumbow says:

    Apart from First Amendment concerns (or maybe not), this order confuses domain names with Web sites. Unless someone has figured out a way that a domain name can “block access” …

  4. Bob, it does provide that the domain name *or* their agents, etc., may comply with the geo-blocking order.

  5. Venkat says:

    More meat that I expected – a fun trip through cyberlaw-land.

  6. gambling says:

    This is one of the most ridiculous attempts in modern history.

    I’m sure the porn industry is nervous now.

  7. Cosay Nold says:

    Anf what are they going to do about domain names registered through places like Gandi, which is based in France. They can’t compel Gandi to do anything.

  8. Mark Kernes says:

    Gambling’s got it right: If a court can order an ISP to selectively block access to websites based on the “accesser’s” geographical location, we’re all in trouble. I can envision, for instance, a state that outlaws abortion attempting to block websites that might tell residents of that state where they might go to obtain one.

    Or is that not what the judge’s order says?

  9. David says:

    Domain names are “property” subject to seizure.

    Marc, does this decision mean domain names are treated as property for any circumstance in Kentucky? I still can’t seem to clearly understand that inspite of reading it at least 3x, unlike maybe where domain names was decided as property for tort of conversion in California.

    (Oh boy, domains are property, here we go again…)

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: